2018 schedule 7-5

[74Hunter]

"It's pretty pathetic, actually." You called something pathetic you clearly don't have a grasp on.

I clearly understand the 9 game conference football schedule and wasn't making any reference to it.

Apparently the post I made is above your comprehension level.

As far as rivals home and away. Meh semantics

Ummmmmm......that word doesn't mean what you think it means........

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics

 

[westender]

Don't be a jack***.

Wouldn't it be nice if you were able to split games with your 2 biggest divisional rivals, play one at home every year and one away instead of either having both at home or on the road? Not only for fairness in scheduling, but for the viewing pleasure of the fans.

There are certain cross division teams that we have played almost every year since we've been in the B1G, yet others that we have almost never played.

Men's basketball and baseball, it's almost as if they are picking teams out of a hat.

The basketball is schizo, we had only 1 conference Saturday home game this year. There is not rhyme or reason why we play certain games twice in a year, others only once. Sometimes having travel to certain locations more than the other teams have to reciprocate. Let's not even talk about the dumbassery that was this years' conference schedule with holding the tourney a week early just so it could be played in MSG.

Baseball-- again, certain teams we play almost every year, others we rarely play. I believe that there is only 7 or 8 conference series throughout the year, and there needs to be more. Northern baseball teams normally play a lot of games early in the year in the South. There is no reason why conference series can't be played at a neutral Southern site.

Don't you have to win to be considered a rival? Just measuring ourselves against where Nebraska is as a team. Hope that dude is still getting a payout because that was the gift that kept on giving.

 

[MoseSchrute]

Fascinating that everyone seems to pick Iowa to be somewhere around 5-4 or 4-5 in the B10.
How is that acceptable (again, and more often than not the B10 record)?
Could we aspire to higher levels of achievement?

You and I could certainly aspire to higher levels of achievement, but what can we do about it?

 

[pythagoras]

I clearly understand the 9 game conference football schedule and wasn't making any reference to it.

Apparently the post I made is above your comprehension level.



Ummmmmm......that word doesn't mean what you think it means........

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics

You clearly don't understand the schedule and are just complaining to complain.

And I do, you clearly had to look it up and can't comprehend the definition in this situation.

 

[99topdawg]

This guy says 10-2. Agree or not, it's a pretty good read. I'll take it.

 

[74Hunter]

You clearly don't understand the schedule and are just complaining to complain.

And I do, you clearly had to look it up and can't comprehend the definition in this situation.

Cool.

Then why don't you explain it to me?

 

[pythagoras]

Cool.

Then why don't you explain it to me?

Arguing semantics in relation to a Iowa B1G football schedule is literally by definition arguing about something irrelevant

 

[4thngoal]

I do have to agree with 74 somewhat.
My only real complaint is cross overs. That said, you just don't know a few years in advance how good those teams will be. Personally I think a win over PSU this year is going to mean more than one over OSU, but at the end of the day, you line up across from whomever they put across from you and you win baby. That's all you can do.

 

[homes]

I do have to agree with 74 somewhat.
My only real complaint is cross overs. That said, you just don't know a few years in advance how good those teams will be. Personally I think a win over PSU this year is going to mean more than one over OSU, but at the end of the day, you line up across from whomever they put across from you and you win baby. That's all you can do.

You raise a good point. In these days of ever increasing awareness of being fair, equitable and just, I propose that every Big Ten team gets to replace one conference game for another if they determine that a team on their schedule is better than they were anticipated to be when the schedule was first set. I mean, it's only fair, right?

 

[BigD]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz............zzzzzzzz........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ............................. snort.............zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ................ SNORT ................................ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[4thngoal]

You raise a good point. In these days of ever increasing awareness of being fair, equitable and just, I propose that every Big Ten team gets to replace one conference game for another if they determine that a team on their schedule is better than they were anticipated to be when the schedule was first set. I mean, it's only fair, right?

I'm just saying that on the extreme end of the spectrum, it is possible to be of the caliber of national champions but if you played an extremely weak schedule, you could be over looked.
Titles are great and all, but really their worth is based on the body of work required to obtain them.
Is this not the basis for the argument of how an 8 win team can be better than a 10 win team?
It does appear that sometimes we have harder schedules and sometimes easier ones. However, one could say that it only appears to be harder as the result of those teams working their butts off. Or......they had easy schedules.
Inevitably this is why the east being top heavy is ok, because as long as you play one or two of them a year, you get to see how you match up. If you only crossed over the worst teams, you just don't know.
However you won't know if it's going to be OSU and PSU or Mich and Mich States year.
Chances are if you play two of them, one is going to be pretty good.
Certainly the viewership is higher than against Rutgers.

 

[homes]

I'm just saying that on the extreme end of the spectrum, it is possible to be of the caliber of national champions but if you played an extremely weak schedule, you could be over looked.
Titles are great and all, but really their worth is based on the body of work required to obtain them.
Is this not the basis for the argument of how an 8 win team can be better than a 10 win team?
It does appear that sometimes we have harder schedules and sometimes easier ones. However, one could say that it only appears to be harder as the result of those teams working their butts off. Or......they had easy schedules.
Inevitably this is why the east being top heavy is ok, because as long as you play one or two of them a year, you get to see how you match up. If you only crossed over the worst teams, you just don't know.
However you won't know if it's going to be OSU and PSU or Mich and Mich States year.
Chances are if you play two of them, one is going to be pretty good.
Certainly the viewership is higher than against Rutgers.

First off, I was be facetious.

Outside of OSU and mostly Michigan, the success of teams run in cycles - sometimes those cycles last awhile, but they still cycle. Meaning, if the Big Ten is still in existence 20 years from now, the West may be seen as the most powerful division, and Iowa would look for a break playing East opponents.

In terms of winning a title, over time, no one will remember if it was against a soft or strong schedule, winning the title is all that will be recalled, and frankly, all that should be recalled.

 

[lightning1]

Again? Didn't Stanley almost break the record for TD's this last season?

Is that true? It seems inconceivable that Stanley could come close to any record, with the 110th rated offense.

 

[4thngoal]

First off, I was be facetious.

Outside of OSU and mostly Michigan, the success of teams run in cycles - sometimes those cycles last awhile, but they still cycle. Meaning, if the Big Ten is still in existence 20 years from now, the West may be seen as the most powerful division, and Iowa would look for a break playing East opponents.

In terms of winning a title, over time, no one will remember if it was against a soft or strong schedule, winning the title is all that will be recalled, and frankly, all that should be recalled.

I would argue that PSU and Mich state have had a fair amount of success as well.
As for titles I disagree. That's why all those rings from losing bowl games are in a box somewhere.
It's a competitive sport thus any title is only as good as the competition.
I mean look, the title in the Mac doesn't carry near the weight as one in the big 10. Just as a Rose bowl win is more revered than Foster Farms bowl.

 

[AreWeThereYet]

Is that true? It seems inconceivable that Stanley could come close to any record, with the 110th rated offense.

Iowa did very poorly at total offense 329.5 ypg, yet scored 44 offensive touchdowns.

Teams that had similar offensive statistics.
Kansas State 372.5 ypg, 45 TDs
Vanderbilt 350.8 ypg, 41 TDs
Kentucky 349.8 ypg, 37 TDs
Michigan State 283.1 ypg, 38 TDs
North Carloina 369.6 ypg, 38 TDs
Duke 384.5 ypg, 38 TDs

Teams that have similar offensive philosophies. Iowa has the most exaggerated split.

 

[iowa57-03]

Is that true? It seems inconceivable that Stanley could come close to any record, with the 110th rated offense.

 

[homes]

I would argue that PSU and Mich state have had a fair amount of success as well.
As for titles I disagree. That's why all those rings from losing bowl games are in a box somewhere.
It's a competitive sport thus any title is only as good as the competition.
I mean look, the title in the Mac doesn't carry near the weight as one in the big 10. Just as a Rose bowl win is more revered than Foster Farms bowl.

It's self-evident that a MAC title isn't the same thing as a Big Ten title, and a MAC title holder will always be overlooked in the NC battle - unless a MAC team beat 3 top Power 5 conference teams plus run the table in the MAC - then, they may be put into the mix. However, in context of a Power 5 conference, the only teams really eligible to win a NC, the strength of schedule pales in comparison to the W-L record. Iowa is the perfect example of that. In 2015 their 12-0 record was regularly discounted as being the product of a weak schedule, yet if they had beaten MSU in the BT championship game, which they were oh so close to doing, they would have been in the NC semi-finals. There may have been "better" teams in the country, but they wouldn't have made the NC semi-finals that year. Look no further than Stanford that year.

 

[4thngoal]

It's self-evident that a MAC title isn't the same thing as a Big Ten title, and a MAC title holder will always be overlooked in the NC battle - unless a MAC team beat 3 top Power 5 conference teams plus run the table in the MAC - then, they may be put into the mix. However, in context of a Power 5 conference, the only teams really eligible to win a NC, the strength of schedule pales in comparison to the W-L record. Iowa is the perfect example of that. In 2015 their 12-0 record was regularly discounted as being the product of a weak schedule, yet if they had beaten MSU in the BT championship game, which they were oh so close to doing, they would have been in the NC semi-finals. There may have been "better" teams in the country, but they wouldn't have made the NC semi-finals that year. Look no further than Stanford that year.

You think that Stanford game was embarrassing??
All anyone remembers about OSU making it that far was the beat down they took. Nobody remembers their season. Did they win the B10? As we've seen you don't have to win your conference to make it.
At the end of the day, the reason a nt is a nt is because it's supposed to be 1 against 2. Not 1 against number 30. Why? Because that wouldn't be very competitive now would it? It's the competition that makes it what it is and worth winning.

 

[BigD]

Fascinating that everyone seems to pick Iowa to be somewhere around 5-4 or 4-5 in the B10.
How is that acceptable (again, and more often than not the B10 record)?
Could we aspire to higher levels of achievement?

It shouldn’t be acceptable. Think about the mindset here. We are a sh!t program in a sh!t location and so we have to pay a top salary for a coach just for mediocrity. Go hawks............. no wait I have to put my Hawkeye jacket on first. Now I am ready................. GO HAWKS!!!

Lol, and people want to make fun at Iowa State fans???